2003 R2 DFS Namespace - first / last among all targets issue.

I have two identical 2003 R2 servers set up with DFS Namespace and
replication between them. I have a target folder published in the namespace
with server A set as "First among all targets" and Server B "Last among all
targets" (of course with "Override referral ordering" checked too). The
servers have been in production for about 5 weeks now with no real issues
but suddenly this past week I have noticed users showing up on server B when
I look at the shared folder sessions and open files.

I would have thought given the specified settings that users would only
access server B if server A was down. Is this not the case and if not, is
there any way I can make it as such? Appreciate any advice. Thanks.

Hello Barkley,

Are both targets in a single AD site? The target prioritazation you just
mention will work only if your targets are in a single AD site with one
physical location. If both are in the same physical location, then you may
want ot check your Referrals ordering method to make sure you select "Lowest
Cost" and not "Random Order". Also, be aware that DFS targets for a single
site can be randomly selected highest or lowest and on remote site targets
can be ordered using AD site link cost or randomly as well.

Isaac

--
Isaac Oben [MCTIP, MCSE]
"Barkley Bees" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I have two identical 2003 R2 servers set up with DFS Namespace and
>replication between them. I have a target folder published in the namespace
>with server A set as "First among all targets" and Server B "Last among all
>targets" (of course with "Override referral ordering" checked too). The
>servers have been in production for about 5 weeks now with no real issues
>but suddenly this past week I have noticed users showing up on server B
>when I look at the shared folder sessions and open files.
>
> I would have thought given the specified settings that users would only
> access server B if server A was down. Is this not the case and if not, is
> there any way I can make it as such? Appreciate any advice. Thanks.
>

Hi Isaac,

Thanks for your reply. In answer to your questions:

-Both targets are in a single AD site.
-Two physical locations with a dedicated 100MB link between them.
-Referrals ordering method in the DFS Root is set to "Lowest cost" (target
folder inheriting from root).

Server A gets around 500-600 user sessions at peak hours while Server B gets
only 10-15. Also the users connecting to server B are connecting from the
physical location where Server A is.

Another strange aspect about it if I may: we have two Metaframe servers (out
of scope for this forum) that are in a load balancing configuration. Users
connected to Meta Server X are only accessing the DFS target on Server A
while users connected to Meta Y are only accessing the target on Server B.

DFS Server A, Meta Server X and Meta Server Y are in one physical location
on the same VLAN. DFS Server B is at another physical location but on the
same LAN (different VLAN) with a dedication 100MB link. Only one AD site
exists.

DFS Root is set with Ordering method: Lowest cost
Name space Servers is set to "override referral ordering" with Target
priority set as:
Server A - First among all targets, Server B - Last among all targets.



"Isaac Oben [MCITP,MCSE]" <> wrote in message
news:1AB21E58-B3EC-4999-83E3-...
> Hello Barkley,
>
> Are both targets in a single AD site? The target prioritazation you just
> mention will work only if your targets are in a single AD site with one
> physical location. If both are in the same physical location, then you may
> want ot check your Referrals ordering method to make sure you select
> "Lowest Cost" and not "Random Order". Also, be aware that DFS targets for
> a single site can be randomly selected highest or lowest and on remote
> site targets can be ordered using AD site link cost or randomly as well.
>
> Isaac
>
> --
> Isaac Oben [MCTIP, MCSE]
> "Barkley Bees" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>I have two identical 2003 R2 servers set up with DFS Namespace and
>>replication between them. I have a target folder published in the
>>namespace with server A set as "First among all targets" and Server B
>>"Last among all targets" (of course with "Override referral ordering"
>>checked too). The servers have been in production for about 5 weeks now
>>with no real issues but suddenly this past week I have noticed users
>>showing up on server B when I look at the shared folder sessions and open
>>files.
>>
>> I would have thought given the specified settings that users would only
>> access server B if server A was down. Is this not the case and if not, is
>> there any way I can make it as such? Appreciate any advice. Thanks.
>>
>

Hello Barkley,
Are ServerA and ServerB Domain Controller? If so try to edit registry key
for ServerA to include
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Dfs
"PreferLogonDC" dword:value of 1. This should force users to look for dfs
first from ServerA. Let us know if this solved your problem if not then we
might have to look into your subnets

--
Isaac Oben [MCTIP, MCSE]
"Barkley Bees" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Hi Isaac,
>
> Thanks for your reply. In answer to your questions:
>
> -Both targets are in a single AD site.
> -Two physical locations with a dedicated 100MB link between them.
> -Referrals ordering method in the DFS Root is set to "Lowest cost"
> (target folder inheriting from root).
>
> Server A gets around 500-600 user sessions at peak hours while Server B
> gets only 10-15. Also the users connecting to server B are connecting from
> the physical location where Server A is.
>
> Another strange aspect about it if I may: we have two Metaframe servers
> (out of scope for this forum) that are in a load balancing configuration.
> Users connected to Meta Server X are only accessing the DFS target on
> Server A while users connected to Meta Y are only accessing the target on
> Server B.
>
> DFS Server A, Meta Server X and Meta Server Y are in one physical location
> on the same VLAN. DFS Server B is at another physical location but on the
> same LAN (different VLAN) with a dedication 100MB link. Only one AD site
> exists.
>
> DFS Root is set with Ordering method: Lowest cost
> Name space Servers is set to "override referral ordering" with Target
> priority set as:
> Server A - First among all targets, Server B - Last among all targets.
>
>
>
> "Isaac Oben [MCITP,MCSE]" <> wrote in message
> news:1AB21E58-B3EC-4999-83E3-...
>> Hello Barkley,
>>
>> Are both targets in a single AD site? The target prioritazation you just
>> mention will work only if your targets are in a single AD site with one
>> physical location. If both are in the same physical location, then you
>> may want ot check your Referrals ordering method to make sure you select
>> "Lowest Cost" and not "Random Order". Also, be aware that DFS targets for
>> a single site can be randomly selected highest or lowest and on remote
>> site targets can be ordered using AD site link cost or randomly as well.
>>
>> Isaac
>>
>> --
>> Isaac Oben [MCTIP, MCSE]
>> "Barkley Bees" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>>I have two identical 2003 R2 servers set up with DFS Namespace and
>>>replication between them. I have a target folder published in the
>>>namespace with server A set as "First among all targets" and Server B
>>>"Last among all targets" (of course with "Override referral ordering"
>>>checked too). The servers have been in production for about 5 weeks now
>>>with no real issues but suddenly this past week I have noticed users
>>>showing up on server B when I look at the shared folder sessions and open
>>>files.
>>>
>>> I would have thought given the specified settings that users would only
>>> access server B if server A was down. Is this not the case and if not,
>>> is there any way I can make it as such? Appreciate any advice. Thanks.
>>>
>>
>
>

Unfortunately not...both server A and B are simple dedicated File Servers
using DFS namespaces and replication (Windows Storage Server 2003 R2 x64) .
They are, though, in different subnets.

"Isaac Oben [MCITP,MCSE]" <> wrote in message
news:%...
> Hello Barkley,
> Are ServerA and ServerB Domain Controller? If so try to edit registry key
> for ServerA to include
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Dfs
> "PreferLogonDC" dword:value of 1. This should force users to look for dfs
> first from ServerA. Let us know if this solved your problem if not then we
> might have to look into your subnets
>
> --
> Isaac Oben [MCTIP, MCSE]
> "Barkley Bees" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> Hi Isaac,
>>
>> Thanks for your reply. In answer to your questions:
>>
>> -Both targets are in a single AD site.
>> -Two physical locations with a dedicated 100MB link between them.
>> -Referrals ordering method in the DFS Root is set to "Lowest cost"
>> (target folder inheriting from root).
>>
>> Server A gets around 500-600 user sessions at peak hours while Server B
>> gets only 10-15. Also the users connecting to server B are connecting
>> from the physical location where Server A is.
>>
>> Another strange aspect about it if I may: we have two Metaframe servers
>> (out of scope for this forum) that are in a load balancing configuration.
>> Users connected to Meta Server X are only accessing the DFS target on
>> Server A while users connected to Meta Y are only accessing the target on
>> Server B.
>>
>> DFS Server A, Meta Server X and Meta Server Y are in one physical
>> location on the same VLAN. DFS Server B is at another physical location
>> but on the same LAN (different VLAN) with a dedication 100MB link. Only
>> one AD site exists.
>>
>> DFS Root is set with Ordering method: Lowest cost
>> Name space Servers is set to "override referral ordering" with Target
>> priority set as:
>> Server A - First among all targets, Server B - Last among all targets.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Isaac Oben [MCITP,MCSE]" <> wrote in message
>> news:1AB21E58-B3EC-4999-83E3-...
>>> Hello Barkley,
>>>
>>> Are both targets in a single AD site? The target prioritazation you just
>>> mention will work only if your targets are in a single AD site with one
>>> physical location. If both are in the same physical location, then you
>>> may want ot check your Referrals ordering method to make sure you select
>>> "Lowest Cost" and not "Random Order". Also, be aware that DFS targets
>>> for a single site can be randomly selected highest or lowest and on
>>> remote site targets can be ordered using AD site link cost or randomly
>>> as well.
>>>
>>> Isaac
>>>
>>> --
>>> Isaac Oben [MCTIP, MCSE]
>>> "Barkley Bees" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>>I have two identical 2003 R2 servers set up with DFS Namespace and
>>>>replication between them. I have a target folder published in the
>>>>namespace with server A set as "First among all targets" and Server B
>>>>"Last among all targets" (of course with "Override referral ordering"
>>>>checked too). The servers have been in production for about 5 weeks now
>>>>with no real issues but suddenly this past week I have noticed users
>>>>showing up on server B when I look at the shared folder sessions and
>>>>open files.
>>>>
>>>> I would have thought given the specified settings that users would only
>>>> access server B if server A was down. Is this not the case and if not,
>>>> is there any way I can make it as such? Appreciate any advice. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

Barkley,

The suggestion I might say is that of using a script, maybe logon script, to
force users to use DFS shares based on their subnets.

Isaac

--
Isaac Oben [MCTIP, MCSE]
"Barkley Bees" <> wrote in message
news:eHXzP1%...
> Unfortunately not...both server A and B are simple dedicated File Servers
> using DFS namespaces and replication (Windows Storage Server 2003 R2 x64)
> . They are, though, in different subnets.
>
> "Isaac Oben [MCITP,MCSE]" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> Hello Barkley,
>> Are ServerA and ServerB Domain Controller? If so try to edit registry key
>> for ServerA to include
>> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Dfs
>> "PreferLogonDC" dword:value of 1. This should force users to look for dfs
>> first from ServerA. Let us know if this solved your problem if not then
>> we might have to look into your subnets
>>
>> --
>> Isaac Oben [MCTIP, MCSE]
>> "Barkley Bees" <> wrote in message
>> news:%...
>>> Hi Isaac,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply. In answer to your questions:
>>>
>>> -Both targets are in a single AD site.
>>> -Two physical locations with a dedicated 100MB link between them.
>>> -Referrals ordering method in the DFS Root is set to "Lowest cost"
>>> (target folder inheriting from root).
>>>
>>> Server A gets around 500-600 user sessions at peak hours while Server B
>>> gets only 10-15. Also the users connecting to server B are connecting
>>> from the physical location where Server A is.
>>>
>>> Another strange aspect about it if I may: we have two Metaframe servers
>>> (out of scope for this forum) that are in a load balancing
>>> configuration. Users connected to Meta Server X are only accessing the
>>> DFS target on Server A while users connected to Meta Y are only
>>> accessing the target on Server B.
>>>
>>> DFS Server A, Meta Server X and Meta Server Y are in one physical
>>> location on the same VLAN. DFS Server B is at another physical location
>>> but on the same LAN (different VLAN) with a dedication 100MB link. Only
>>> one AD site exists.
>>>
>>> DFS Root is set with Ordering method: Lowest cost
>>> Name space Servers is set to "override referral ordering" with Target
>>> priority set as:
>>> Server A - First among all targets, Server B - Last among all targets.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Isaac Oben [MCITP,MCSE]" <> wrote in message
>>> news:1AB21E58-B3EC-4999-83E3-...
>>>> Hello Barkley,
>>>>
>>>> Are both targets in a single AD site? The target prioritazation you
>>>> just mention will work only if your targets are in a single AD site
>>>> with one physical location. If both are in the same physical location,
>>>> then you may want ot check your Referrals ordering method to make sure
>>>> you select "Lowest Cost" and not "Random Order". Also, be aware that
>>>> DFS targets for a single site can be randomly selected highest or
>>>> lowest and on remote site targets can be ordered using AD site link
>>>> cost or randomly as well.
>>>>
>>>> Isaac
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Isaac Oben [MCTIP, MCSE]
>>>> "Barkley Bees" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>>I have two identical 2003 R2 servers set up with DFS Namespace and
>>>>>replication between them. I have a target folder published in the
>>>>>namespace with server A set as "First among all targets" and Server B
>>>>>"Last among all targets" (of course with "Override referral ordering"
>>>>>checked too). The servers have been in production for about 5 weeks now
>>>>>with no real issues but suddenly this past week I have noticed users
>>>>>showing up on server B when I look at the shared folder sessions and
>>>>>open files.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have thought given the specified settings that users would
>>>>> only access server B if server A was down. Is this not the case and if
>>>>> not, is there any way I can make it as such? Appreciate any advice.
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

--
Isaac Oben [MCTIP, MCSE]
"Barkley Bees" <> wrote in message
news:eHXzP1%...
> Unfortunately not...both server A and B are simple dedicated File Servers
> using DFS namespaces and replication (Windows Storage Server 2003 R2 x64)
> . They are, though, in different subnets.
>
> "Isaac Oben [MCITP,MCSE]" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>> Hello Barkley,
>> Are ServerA and ServerB Domain Controller? If so try to edit registry key
>> for ServerA to include
>> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Servic es\Dfs
>> "PreferLogonDC" dword:value of 1. This should force users to look for dfs
>> first from ServerA. Let us know if this solved your problem if not then
>> we might have to look into your subnets
>>
>> --
>> Isaac Oben [MCTIP, MCSE]
>> "Barkley Bees" <> wrote in message
>> news:%...
>>> Hi Isaac,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your reply. In answer to your questions:
>>>
>>> -Both targets are in a single AD site.
>>> -Two physical locations with a dedicated 100MB link between them.
>>> -Referrals ordering method in the DFS Root is set to "Lowest cost"
>>> (target folder inheriting from root).
>>>
>>> Server A gets around 500-600 user sessions at peak hours while Server B
>>> gets only 10-15. Also the users connecting to server B are connecting
>>> from the physical location where Server A is.
>>>
>>> Another strange aspect about it if I may: we have two Metaframe servers
>>> (out of scope for this forum) that are in a load balancing
>>> configuration. Users connected to Meta Server X are only accessing the
>>> DFS target on Server A while users connected to Meta Y are only
>>> accessing the target on Server B.
>>>
>>> DFS Server A, Meta Server X and Meta Server Y are in one physical
>>> location on the same VLAN. DFS Server B is at another physical location
>>> but on the same LAN (different VLAN) with a dedication 100MB link. Only
>>> one AD site exists.
>>>
>>> DFS Root is set with Ordering method: Lowest cost
>>> Name space Servers is set to "override referral ordering" with Target
>>> priority set as:
>>> Server A - First among all targets, Server B - Last among all targets.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Isaac Oben [MCITP,MCSE]" <> wrote in message
>>> news:1AB21E58-B3EC-4999-83E3-...
>>>> Hello Barkley,
>>>>
>>>> Are both targets in a single AD site? The target prioritazation you
>>>> just mention will work only if your targets are in a single AD site
>>>> with one physical location. If both are in the same physical location,
>>>> then you may want ot check your Referrals ordering method to make sure
>>>> you select "Lowest Cost" and not "Random Order". Also, be aware that
>>>> DFS targets for a single site can be randomly selected highest or
>>>> lowest and on remote site targets can be ordered using AD site link
>>>> cost or randomly as well.
>>>>
>>>> Isaac
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Isaac Oben [MCTIP, MCSE]
>>>> "Barkley Bees" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>>I have two identical 2003 R2 servers set up with DFS Namespace and
>>>>>replication between them. I have a target folder published in the
>>>>>namespace with server A set as "First among all targets" and Server B
>>>>>"Last among all targets" (of course with "Override referral ordering"
>>>>>checked too). The servers have been in production for about 5 weeks now
>>>>>with no real issues but suddenly this past week I have noticed users
>>>>>showing up on server B when I look at the shared folder sessions and
>>>>>open files.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have thought given the specified settings that users would
>>>>> only access server B if server A was down. Is this not the case and if
>>>>> not, is there any way I can make it as such? Appreciate any advice.
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>

I have seen this too. I think it may be due to loading but have never verified
this. If Server A is very busy then the client may switch to ServerB believing
the late response is due to ServerA being down. This is clearly a possibility as
part of the design of DFS. The issue is how long to wait for a response before
deciding that a server is not available and using the alternate server.


On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:47:36 +0900, "Barkley Bees" <> wrote:

>Hi Isaac,
>
>Thanks for your reply. In answer to your questions:
>
>-Both targets are in a single AD site.
>-Two physical locations with a dedicated 100MB link between them.
>-Referrals ordering method in the DFS Root is set to "Lowest cost" (target
>folder inheriting from root).
>
>Server A gets around 500-600 user sessions at peak hours while Server B gets
>only 10-15. Also the users connecting to server B are connecting from the
>physical location where Server A is.
>
>Another strange aspect about it if I may: we have two Metaframe servers (out
>of scope for this forum) that are in a load balancing configuration. Users
>connected to Meta Server X are only accessing the DFS target on Server A
>while users connected to Meta Y are only accessing the target on Server B.
>
>DFS Server A, Meta Server X and Meta Server Y are in one physical location
>on the same VLAN. DFS Server B is at another physical location but on the
>same LAN (different VLAN) with a dedication 100MB link. Only one AD site
>exists.
>
>DFS Root is set with Ordering method: Lowest cost
>Name space Servers is set to "override referral ordering" with Target
>priority set as:
>Server A - First among all targets, Server B - Last among all targets.
>
>
>
>"Isaac Oben [MCITP,MCSE]" <> wrote in message
>news:1AB21E58-B3EC-4999-83E3-...
>> Hello Barkley,
>>
>> Are both targets in a single AD site? The target prioritazation you just
>> mention will work only if your targets are in a single AD site with one
>> physical location. If both are in the same physical location, then you may
>> want ot check your Referrals ordering method to make sure you select
>> "Lowest Cost" and not "Random Order". Also, be aware that DFS targets for
>> a single site can be randomly selected highest or lowest and on remote
>> site targets can be ordered using AD site link cost or randomly as well.
>>
>> Isaac
>>
>> --
>> Isaac Oben [MCTIP, MCSE]
>> "Barkley Bees" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>>I have two identical 2003 R2 servers set up with DFS Namespace and
>>>replication between them. I have a target folder published in the
>>>namespace with server A set as "First among all targets" and Server B
>>>"Last among all targets" (of course with "Override referral ordering"
>>>checked too). The servers have been in production for about 5 weeks now
>>>with no real issues but suddenly this past week I have noticed users
>>>showing up on server B when I look at the shared folder sessions and open
>>>files.
>>>
>>> I would have thought given the specified settings that users would only
>>> access server B if server A was down. Is this not the case and if not, is
>>> there any way I can make it as such? Appreciate any advice. Thanks.
>>>
>>
>
--
Dave Mills
There are 10 types of people, those that understand binary and those that don't.

This is what I had initially thought but after having watched it for a few
weeks, I can see that it seems to be the same 3-4 users who go to this
server over and over.

Btw, after rebooting the secondary DFS server this morning I could see that
users from both Metaframe servers were now going to the primary server.
I had noticed, from looking around, that the Metaframe servers didn't have
any WINS addresses configured and only one of our internal DNS servers. So,
I corrected the settings on them both. I don't know, though, if this can
attributed to the strangeness I mentioned before where users from "Meta
Server X" went to "DFS Server A" and "Meta Server Y" went to "DFS Server B".
I will be monitoring it and update if any change.

Just thinking aloud here but if I 100% want users to only go to the primary
server (even if there is a failure), could I create another site and put the
secondary server in it and specify for users to only go to the server in the
same site? Really what we want is for ALL users to only go to the primary
server and in the event of a failure, use DFS-R to replicate the files back
from the secondary server to the primary after it has recovered (if
necessary - ie: total hardware failure).

"DaveMills" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I have seen this too. I think it may be due to loading but have never
>verified
> this. If Server A is very busy then the client may switch to ServerB
> believing
> the late response is due to ServerA being down. This is clearly a
> possibility as
> part of the design of DFS. The issue is how long to wait for a response
> before
> deciding that a server is not available and using the alternate server.
>
>
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:47:36 +0900, "Barkley Bees" <>
> wrote:
>
>>Hi Isaac,
>>
>>Thanks for your reply. In answer to your questions:
>>
>>-Both targets are in a single AD site.
>>-Two physical locations with a dedicated 100MB link between them.
>>-Referrals ordering method in the DFS Root is set to "Lowest cost"
>>(target
>>folder inheriting from root).
>>
>>Server A gets around 500-600 user sessions at peak hours while Server B
>>gets
>>only 10-15. Also the users connecting to server B are connecting from the
>>physical location where Server A is.
>>
>>Another strange aspect about it if I may: we have two Metaframe servers
>>(out
>>of scope for this forum) that are in a load balancing configuration. Users
>>connected to Meta Server X are only accessing the DFS target on Server A
>>while users connected to Meta Y are only accessing the target on Server B.
>>
>>DFS Server A, Meta Server X and Meta Server Y are in one physical location
>>on the same VLAN. DFS Server B is at another physical location but on the
>>same LAN (different VLAN) with a dedication 100MB link. Only one AD site
>>exists.
>>
>>DFS Root is set with Ordering method: Lowest cost
>>Name space Servers is set to "override referral ordering" with Target
>>priority set as:
>>Server A - First among all targets, Server B - Last among all targets.
>>
>>
>>
>>"Isaac Oben [MCITP,MCSE]" <> wrote in message
>>news:1AB21E58-B3EC-4999-83E3-...
>>> Hello Barkley,
>>>
>>> Are both targets in a single AD site? The target prioritazation you just
>>> mention will work only if your targets are in a single AD site with one
>>> physical location. If both are in the same physical location, then you
>>> may
>>> want ot check your Referrals ordering method to make sure you select
>>> "Lowest Cost" and not "Random Order". Also, be aware that DFS targets
>>> for
>>> a single site can be randomly selected highest or lowest and on remote
>>> site targets can be ordered using AD site link cost or randomly as well.
>>>
>>> Isaac
>>>
>>> --
>>> Isaac Oben [MCTIP, MCSE]
>>> "Barkley Bees" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>>I have two identical 2003 R2 servers set up with DFS Namespace and
>>>>replication between them. I have a target folder published in the
>>>>namespace with server A set as "First among all targets" and Server B
>>>>"Last among all targets" (of course with "Override referral ordering"
>>>>checked too). The servers have been in production for about 5 weeks now
>>>>with no real issues but suddenly this past week I have noticed users
>>>>showing up on server B when I look at the shared folder sessions and
>>>>open
>>>>files.
>>>>
>>>> I would have thought given the specified settings that users would only
>>>> access server B if server A was down. Is this not the case and if not,
>>>> is
>>>> there any way I can make it as such? Appreciate any advice. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>
>>
> --
> Dave Mills
> There are 10 types of people, those that understand binary and those that
> don't.

On Fri, 6 Mar 2009 15:23:46 +0900, "Barkley Bees" <> wrote:

>This is what I had initially thought but after having watched it for a few
>weeks, I can see that it seems to be the same 3-4 users who go to this
>server over and over.
>
>Btw, after rebooting the secondary DFS server this morning I could see that
>users from both Metaframe servers were now going to the primary server.
>I had noticed, from looking around, that the Metaframe servers didn't have
>any WINS addresses configured and only one of our internal DNS servers. So,
>I corrected the settings on them both. I don't know, though, if this can
>attributed to the strangeness I mentioned before where users from "Meta
>Server X" went to "DFS Server A" and "Meta Server Y" went to "DFS Server B".
>I will be monitoring it and update if any change.
>
>Just thinking aloud here but if I 100% want users to only go to the primary
>server (even if there is a failure), could I create another site and put the
>secondary server in it and specify for users to only go to the server in the
>same site? Really what we want is for ALL users to only go to the primary
>server and in the event of a failure, use DFS-R to replicate the files back
>from the secondary server to the primary after it has recovered (if
>necessary - ie: total hardware failure).

Remember you do not need to have DFS name space for DFSR to function. My plan is
to have home folders on serverA and replication using DFSR to serverB. I will
have the DFS namespace configured but I will disable the link to serverB. In the
event of a failure of serverA I can disable the link to serverA and enable the
link to serverB. When serverA is fixed I can change all quotas to soft quotas,
avoiding the replication from hitting hard quota limits. A after replication is
complete enable the link to serverA and disable the link to serverB again. Once
replication has fully completed I can report on "over quota" users and restore
hard quotas again.
>
>"DaveMills" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>>I have seen this too. I think it may be due to loading but have never
>>verified
>> this. If Server A is very busy then the client may switch to ServerB
>> believing
>> the late response is due to ServerA being down. This is clearly a
>> possibility as
>> part of the design of DFS. The issue is how long to wait for a response
>> before
>> deciding that a server is not available and using the alternate server.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:47:36 +0900, "Barkley Bees" <>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Isaac,
>>>
>>>Thanks for your reply. In answer to your questions:
>>>
>>>-Both targets are in a single AD site.
>>>-Two physical locations with a dedicated 100MB link between them.
>>>-Referrals ordering method in the DFS Root is set to "Lowest cost"
>>>(target
>>>folder inheriting from root).
>>>
>>>Server A gets around 500-600 user sessions at peak hours while Server B
>>>gets
>>>only 10-15. Also the users connecting to server B are connecting from the
>>>physical location where Server A is.
>>>
>>>Another strange aspect about it if I may: we have two Metaframe servers
>>>(out
>>>of scope for this forum) that are in a load balancing configuration. Users
>>>connected to Meta Server X are only accessing the DFS target on Server A
>>>while users connected to Meta Y are only accessing the target on Server B.
>>>
>>>DFS Server A, Meta Server X and Meta Server Y are in one physical location
>>>on the same VLAN. DFS Server B is at another physical location but on the
>>>same LAN (different VLAN) with a dedication 100MB link. Only one AD site
>>>exists.
>>>
>>>DFS Root is set with Ordering method: Lowest cost
>>>Name space Servers is set to "override referral ordering" with Target
>>>priority set as:
>>>Server A - First among all targets, Server B - Last among all targets.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"Isaac Oben [MCITP,MCSE]" <> wrote in message
>>>news:1AB21E58-B3EC-4999-83E3-...
>>>> Hello Barkley,
>>>>
>>>> Are both targets in a single AD site? The target prioritazation you just
>>>> mention will work only if your targets are in a single AD site with one
>>>> physical location. If both are in the same physical location, then you
>>>> may
>>>> want ot check your Referrals ordering method to make sure you select
>>>> "Lowest Cost" and not "Random Order". Also, be aware that DFS targets
>>>> for
>>>> a single site can be randomly selected highest or lowest and on remote
>>>> site targets can be ordered using AD site link cost or randomly as well.
>>>>
>>>> Isaac
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Isaac Oben [MCTIP, MCSE]
>>>> "Barkley Bees" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>>I have two identical 2003 R2 servers set up with DFS Namespace and
>>>>>replication between them. I have a target folder published in the
>>>>>namespace with server A set as "First among all targets" and Server B
>>>>>"Last among all targets" (of course with "Override referral ordering"
>>>>>checked too). The servers have been in production for about 5 weeks now
>>>>>with no real issues but suddenly this past week I have noticed users
>>>>>showing up on server B when I look at the shared folder sessions and
>>>>>open
>>>>>files.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have thought given the specified settings that users would only
>>>>> access server B if server A was down. Is this not the case and if not,
>>>>> is
>>>>> there any way I can make it as such? Appreciate any advice. Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Dave Mills
>> There are 10 types of people, those that understand binary and those that
>> don't.
>
--
Dave Mills
There are 10 types of people, those that understand binary and those that don't.